1. Field
The present systems, methods, and apparatus relate to superconducting circuits and scalable quantum computing and the programming of elements of a quantum processor.
2. Description of the Related Art
A Turing machine is a theoretical computing system, described in 1936 by Alan Turing. A Turing machine that can efficiently simulate any other Turing machine is called a Universal Turing Machine (UTM). The Church-Turing thesis states that any practical computing model has either the equivalent or a subset of the capabilities of a UTM.
A quantum computer is any physical system that harnesses one or more quantum effects to perform a computation. A quantum computer that can efficiently simulate any other quantum computer is called a Universal Quantum Computer (UQC).
In 1981 Richard P. Feynman proposed that quantum computers could be used to solve certain computational problems more efficiently than a UTM and therefore invalidate the Church-Turing thesis. See e.g., Feynman R. P., “Simulating Physics with Computers”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 21 (1982) pp. 467-488. For example, Feynman noted that a quantum computer could be used to simulate certain other quantum systems, allowing exponentially faster calculation of certain properties of the simulated quantum system than is possible using a UTM.
Approaches to Quantum Computation
There are several general approaches to the design and operation of quantum computers. One such approach is the “circuit model” of quantum computation. In this approach, qubits are acted upon by sequences of logical gates that are the compiled representation of an algorithm. Circuit model quantum computers have several serious barriers to practical implementation. In the circuit model, it is required that qubits remain coherent over time periods much longer than the single-gate time. This requirement arises because circuit model quantum computers require operations that are collectively called quantum error correction in order to operate. Quantum error correction cannot be performed without the circuit model quantum computer's qubits being capable of maintaining quantum coherence over time periods on the order of 1,000 times the single-gate time. Much research has been focused on developing qubits with coherence sufficient to form the basic information units of circuit model quantum computers. See e.g., Shor, P. W. “Introduction to Quantum Algorithms”, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0005003 (2001), pp. 1-27. The art is still hampered by an inability to increase the coherence of qubits to acceptable levels for designing and operating practical circuit model quantum computers.
Another approach to quantum computation involves using the natural physical evolution of a system of coupled quantum systems as a computational system. This approach does not make critical use of quantum gates and circuits. Instead, starting from a known initial Hamiltonian, it relies upon the guided physical evolution of a system of coupled quantum systems wherein the problem to be solved has been encoded in the terms of the system's Hamiltonian, so that the final state of the system of coupled quantum systems contains information relating to the answer to the problem to be solved. This approach does not require long qubit coherence times. Examples of this type of approach include adiabatic quantum computation, cluster-state quantum computation, one-way quantum computation, quantum annealing and classical annealing, and are described, for example, in Farhi, E. et al., “Quantum Adiabatic Evolution Algorithms versus Simulated Annealing” arXiv.org:quant-ph/0201031 (2002), pp 1-16.
Qubits
As mentioned previously, qubits can be used as fundamental units of information for a quantum computer. As with bits in UTMs, qubits can refer to at least two distinct quantities; a qubit can refer to the actual physical device in which information is stored, and it can also refer to the unit of information itself, abstracted away from its physical device. Examples of qubits include quantum particles, atoms, electrons, photons, ions, and the like.
Qubits generalize the concept of a classical digital bit. A classical information storage device can encode two discrete states, typically labeled “0” and “1”. Physically these two discrete states are represented by two different and distinguishable physical states of the classical information storage device, such as direction or magnitude of magnetic field, current, or voltage, where the quantity encoding the bit state behaves according to the laws of classical physics. A qubit also contains two discrete physical states, which can also be labeled “0” and “1”. Physically these two discrete states are represented by two different and distinguishable physical states of the quantum information storage device, such as direction or magnitude of magnetic field, current, or voltage, where the quantity encoding the bit state behaves according to the laws of quantum physics. If the physical quantity that stores these states behaves quantum mechanically, the device can additionally be placed in a superposition of 0 and 1. That is, the qubit can exist in both a “0” and “1” state at the same time, and so can perform a computation on both states simultaneously. In general, N qubits can be in a superposition of 2N states. Quantum algorithms make use of the superposition property to speed up some computations.
In standard notation, the basis states of a qubit are referred to as the |0 and |1 states. During quantum computation, the state of a qubit, in general, is a superposition of basis states so that the qubit has a nonzero probability of occupying the |0 basis state and a simultaneous nonzero probability of occupying the |1 basis state. Mathematically, a superposition of basis states means that the overall state of the qubit, which is denoted |Ψ, has the form |Ψ=a|0+b|1, where a and b are coefficients corresponding to the probabilities |a|2 and |b|2, respectively. The coefficients a and b each have real and imaginary components, which allows the phase of the qubit to be characterized. The quantum nature of a qubit is largely derived from its ability to exist in a coherent superposition of basis states and for the state of the qubit to have a phase. A qubit will retain this ability to exist as a coherent superposition of basis states when the qubit is sufficiently isolated from sources of decoherence.
To complete a computation using a qubit, the state of the qubit is measured (i.e., read out). Typically, when a measurement of the qubit is performed, the quantum nature of the qubit is temporarily lost and the superposition of basis states collapses to either the |0 basis state or the |1 basis state and thus regaining its similarity to a conventional bit. The actual state of the qubit after it has collapsed depends on the probabilities |a|2 and |b|2 immediately prior to the readout operation.
Superconducting Qubits
There are many different hardware and software approaches under consideration for use in quantum computers. One hardware approach uses integrated circuits formed of superconducting materials, such as aluminum or niobium. The technologies and processes involved in designing and fabricating superconducting integrated circuits are similar in some respects to those used for conventional integrated circuits.
Superconducting qubits are a type of superconducting device that can be included in a superconducting integrated circuit. Typical superconducting qubits, for example, have the advantage of scalability and are generally classified depending on the physical properties used to encode information including, for example, charge and phase devices, phase or flux devices, hybrid devices, and the like. Superconducting qubits can be separated into several categories depending on the physical property used to encode information. For example, they may be separated into charge, flux and phase devices, as discussed in, for example Makhlin et al., 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics 73, pp. 357-400. Charge devices store and manipulate information in the charge states of the device, where elementary charges consist of pairs of electrons called Cooper pairs. A Cooper pair has a charge of 2e and consists of two electrons bound together by, for example, a phonon interaction. See e.g., Nielsen and Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000), pp. 343-345. Flux devices store information in a variable related to the magnetic flux through some part of the device. Phase devices store information in a variable related to the difference in superconducting phase between two regions of the phase device. Recently, hybrid devices using two or more of charge, flux and phase degrees of freedom have been developed. See e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,838,694 and U.S. Pat. No. 7,335,909.
Examples of flux qubits that may be used include rf-SQUIDs, which include a superconducting loop interrupted by one Josephson junction, or a compound junction (where a single Josephson junction is replaced by two parallel Josephson junctions), or persistent current qubits, which include a superconducting loop interrupted by three Josephson junctions, and the like. See e.g., Mooij et al., 1999, Science 285, 1036; and Orlando et al., 1999, Phys. Rev. B 60, 15398. Other examples of superconducting qubits can be found, for example, in ll'ichev et al., 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 097906; Blatter et al., 2001, Phys. Rev. B 63, 174511, and Friedman et al., 2000, Nature 406, 43. In addition, hybrid charge-phase qubits may also be used.
The qubits may include a corresponding local bias device. The local bias devices may include a metal loop in proximity to a superconducting qubit that provides an external flux bias to the qubit. The local bias device may also include a plurality of Josephson junctions. Each superconducting qubit in the quantum processor may have a corresponding local bias device or there may be fewer local bias devices than qubits. In some embodiments, charge-based readout and local bias devices may be used. The readout device(s) may include a plurality of dc-SQUID magnetometers, each inductively connected to a different qubit within a topology. The readout device may provide a voltage or current. The dc-SQUID magnetometers including a loop of superconducting material interrupted by at least one Josephson junction are well known in the art.
Quantum Flux Parametron
The quantum flux parametron (QFP) is a superconducting Josephson junction device similar in structure to the compound rf-SQUID. The name “quantum flux parametron”, however, encompasses both the operation and the structure of the Josephson junction device, not simply structure alone. See e.g., Hioe and Goto, Quantum Flux Parametron—A Single Quantum Flux Superconducting Logic Device, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore (1991), pp. 23-41. A particular potential energy curve may be generated with a QFP device. This potential energy curve may resemble a “W” where the central peak or “barrier” is adjustable in height, as are the independent depths of the two wells on either side of the central barrier. In superconducting circuits, the QFP may be implemented as a magnetic flux-based logic device. It follows that QFP devices may be used to implement superconducting shift registers, superconducting memory arrays, superconducting adders, superconducting flip-flops, and other logic-based circuits.
Although the word “quantum” appears in the name of the QFP device, the device is generally operated in a classical manner. In short, quickly raising the height of the central barrier is classically believed to greatly disrupt the energy configuration of the system. Thus, damping resistors are traditionally incorporated into the QFP circuit to help dissipate energy and return the system to a stable energy configuration. These damping resistors dissipate excess energy in the form of heat, a process that can have negative effects on any system that is particularly sensitive to thermal noise. Thus, typical prior art QFP circuits are unsuitable for use with devices that are sensitive to thermal noise, such as the elements of a superconducting quantum processor.
From the quantum mechanical perspective, it is possible to adjust the height of this central barrier slowly enough that the system is not excited beyond the desired ground state. This is an example of adiabatic evolution in a quantum system. Thus, while prior-art damped QFP devices are designed for operation at high switching speeds (greater than ˜20 GHz), the present systems, methods and apparatus provide undamped QFP-like devices for use in superconducting circuits where heat dissipation must be controlled. Operation of the present systems, methods and apparatus will generally be controlled adiabatically. Throughout the remainder of this specification and the appended claims, the terms “adiabatic”, “adiabatically” and “adiabatic frequency” are used to describe frequencies, f, that satisfy:
  f  ≤      1          2      ⁢      π      ⁢              LC            
Where L is the loop inductance and C is the capacitance of the Josephson junction. Those of skill in the art will appreciate that for most of the exemplary circuits described herein, switching speeds will be less than about 20 GHz.
Quantum Processor
A computer processor may take the form of an analog processor, for instance a quantum processor such as a superconducting quantum processor. A superconducting quantum processor may include a number of qubits and associated local bias devices, for instance two or more superconducting qubits. Further detail and embodiments of exemplary quantum processors that may be used in conjunction with the present systems, methods, and apparatus are described in US Patent Publication No. 2006-0225165, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/013,192, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/986,554 filed Nov. 8, 2007 and entitled “Systems, Devices and Methods for Analog Processing.”
A superconducting quantum processor may include a number of coupling devices operable to selectively couple respective pairs of qubits. Examples of superconducting coupling devices include rf-SQUIDs and dc-SQUIDs, which couple qubits together by flux. SQUIDs include a superconducting loop interrupted by one Josephson junction (an rf-SQUID) or two Josephson junctions (a dc-SQUID). The coupling devices may be capable of both ferromagnetic and anti-ferromagnetic coupling, depending on how the coupling device is being utilized within the interconnected topology. In the case of flux coupling, ferromagnetic coupling implies that parallel fluxes are energetically favorable and anti-ferromagnetic coupling implies that anti-parallel fluxes are energetically favorable. Alternatively, charge-based coupling devices may also be used. Other coupling devices can be found, for example, in US Patent Publication No. 2006-0147154 and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/017,995. Respective coupling strengths of the coupling devices may be tuned between zero and a maximum value, for example, to provide ferromagnetic or anti-ferromagnetic coupling between qubits.
Regardless of the specific hardware being implemented, managing a single qubit requires control over a number of parameters. Conventionally, this requirement necessitated outside communication (that is, communication from outside of the processor architecture) with individual qubits. However, since overall processing power increases with the number of qubits in the system, high capacity processors that exceed the abilities of conventional supercomputers must manage a large number of qubits and thus the conventional approach of employing outside control over multiple parameters on individual qubits requires a complicated system for programming qubit parameters.
Thus, the scalability of quantum processors is limited by the complexity of the qubit parameter control system and there is a need in the art for devices that enable a scalable qubit parameter control system.